No October 12, P.2d 660. Appeal from judgment, Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Joseph S. Pavlikowski, Judge.

Similar documents
No December 17, P.2d 1279

No May 23, P.2d 171

1. Recording a notice in the office of the recorder of each county where the trust property is situated.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COCHISE COUNTY

SKYLAND WATER CO., a Nevada Corporation, Appellant and Cross-Respondent, v. TAHOE-DOUGLAS DISTRICT, Respondent and Cross-Appellant. No.

DEED OF TRUST. TITLE SERVICES, LLC., an Idaho Limited Liability company (dba Lawyers Title of Treasure Valley), herein called TRUSTEE, and

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B204853

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON

Bayview Loan Servicing v. Simmons, 275 Va. 114, 654 S.E.2d 898 (2008) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC v.

CHAPTER DEEDS OF TRUST

CA Foreclosure Law - Civil Code 2924:

VA Form (Home Loan) Revised October 1983, Use Optional. Section 1810, Title 38, U.S.C. Acceptable to Federal National Mortgage Association

THE STATE OF NEVADA, on Relation of its DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, Appellant, v. NEVADA AGGREGATES AND ASPHALT COMPANY, et al., Respondents. No.

Sample required format for Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale (with provisions for attorney s fee and additional allowance)

ALL-INCLUSIVE DEED OF TRUST WITH ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS (LONG FORM)

6. Finding on the mortgage or lien, including priority and entitlement to foreclose.

131 Nev., Advance Opinion 72- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

(Reprinted with amendments adopted on May 17, 2017) SECOND REPRINT S.B. 33. Referred to Committee on Judiciary

No September Term, 1998 AUCTION & ESTATE REPRESENTATIVES, INC. SHEILA ASHTON

Appeal from a district court order dismissing a quiet title action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Elissa F. Cadish, Judge.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 118,990 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. JENNIFER VANDONSEL-SANTOYO, Appellee,

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/04/ :33 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/04/2016

No July 3, P.2d 943

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/18/ :11 PM

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

DEED OF TRUST (Keep Your Home California Program) NOTICE TO HOMEOWNER THIS DEED OF TRUST CONTAINS PROVISIONS RESTRICTING ASSUMPTIONS

DEED OF TRUST (WITH ABSOLUTE ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS RIDER)

No May 15, P.2d 620

DEED OF TRUST WITH ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS. This DEED OF TRUST, made this day of, 20 between

FILED. 130 Nev., Advance Opinion tip AUG IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION

DEED OF TRUST W I T N E S S E T H:

The Municipalities Relief and Agricultural Aid Act

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

In re AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE HOLDINGS, INC. 388 B.R. 69 (Bankr. D. Del. 2008) STATEMENT OF FACTS

M & R INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC., a Nevada Corporation, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, on Relation of Its Department of Transportation, Respondent.

Senate Bill No. 306 Senators Ford and Hammond

OF FLORIDA. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Margarita Esquiroz, Judge.

LONG FORM ALL-INCLUSIVE DEED OF TRUST AND ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS

DEED OF TRUST. County and State Where Real Property is located:

PROMISSORY NOTE SECURED BY DEED OF TRUST. Date: City of Milpitas, CA 95035

party of the second part, WITNESSETH: Whereas, the party of the first part is the holder of the following and of the bonds or notes secured thereby:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

THIS AGREEMENT made the day of, in the year

FILED: September8, 2014

Equity Recovery Corp. v Kahal Minchas Chinuch of Tartikov 2014 NY Slip Op 32617(U) September 22, 2014 Sup Ct, Kings County Docket Number: /14

STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT

Consolidated Generator-Nevada, Inc. v. Cummins Engine Co., Inc., 971 P.2d 1251, 114 Nev (Nev., 1998)

TITLE III - LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 5 PUBLIC NUISANCES, ABATEMENT AND PENALTIES CHAPTER 1 PUBLIC NUISANCES ABATEMENT PROCEDURE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:10-cv FB-SMG Document 100 Filed 09/24/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 2229

c t MECHANICS LIEN ACT

THE LAND TITLES ACT MORTGAGE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON NOVEMBER 18, 2010 Session

NOTICE YOU ARE IN DANGER OF LOSING YOUR HOME

You are hereby summoned to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 5 February 2013

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION. Washington, D.C FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT. Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the

Atlas Union Corp. v 46 E. 82nd St. LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 33394(U) December 26, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2017 Judge:

BELIZE AUCTIONEERS ACT CHAPTER 274 REVISED EDITION 2000 SHOWING THE LAW AS AT 31ST DECEMBER, 2000

No Filed: IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

LAND TRUST AGREEMENT W I T N E S S E T H

STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

NO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

Submitted February 9, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Lihotz and Whipple.

YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 272 VAN PELT AVENUE

DUBLIN SCHOOLS DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

Page 520. [85 N.Y.2d 3] [647 N.E.2d 733] Page 521

The Municipalities Relief and Agricultural Aid Act

FILED SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY. AERO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., a Washington corporation, Honorable Susan Craighead

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

KARL and FABIANA STAUFFER, Plaintiffs/Appellants, PREMIER SERVICE MORTGAGE, LLC, et al., Defendants/Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

Tromba v Eastern Fed. Sav. Bank, FSB 2014 NY Slip Op 33869(U) November 21, 2014 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 15727/2014 Judge: Jerry

FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 12/04/ :43 AM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/04/2015

Case 3:15-cv RLY-MPB Document 17-1 Filed 01/21/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 179

SUPREME COURT SECOND DIVISION

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION MECHANICS LIEN SECTION

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 10, 2005 Session

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D ( ISMAEL O. SHABAZZ PLAINTIFF ( BETWEEN ( AND ( ( MILLICENT ARNOLD DEFENDANT JUDGMENT

FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 06/03/ :22 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/03/2015

REGULAR AGENDA NEW BUSINESS #8

*(hereinafter *individually and collectively called the Mortgagor ) the proprietor*s of the land above described in consideration of the MORTGAGEE

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Division V Opinion by JUDGE GRAHAM Russel and Lichtenstein, JJ., concur. Announced June 10, 2010

CHAPTER M-37. An Act respecting the Granting of Relief and Agricultural Aid in Municipalities.

WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CIVIL PROCEDURES (Revised June, 2012)

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 06a0336n.06 Filed: May 11, No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Axa Equit. Life Ins. Co. v 200 E. 87th St. Assoc., L.P NY Slip Op 30069(U) January 4, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number:

ORDER CONFIRMING v. JUDGMENT OF MICHAEL J. SMITH A/K/A MICHAEL SMITH, PIERINA FORECLOSURE AND FINANCE, NEW YORK STATE CHILD SUPPORT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 7 April 2015

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/01/ :49 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/01/2017

NC General Statutes - Chapter 1 Article 5 1

Transcription:

Printed on: 10/20/01 Page # 1 97 Nev. 421, 421 (1981) Halfon v. Title Ins. & Trust Co. DR. M. HALFON, SHEILA HALFON, LEON D. PESKIN and HENRIETTA PESKIN, Appellants, v. TITLE INSURANCE AND TRUST COMPANY, JOE INGERSOLL, BARBARA INGERSOLL, JACK WESLEY LINDELL and ELDORA GASKAMP LINDELL, Respondents. No. 12636 October 12, 1981 634 P.2d 660 Appeal from judgment, Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Joseph S. Pavlikowski, Judge. Vendors of real property commenced action against purchasers seeking deficiency judgment after trustee's sale upon purchaser's default and recovery of condemnation award. The district court awarded vendors judgment, in amount of condemnation award, and purchasers appealed. The Supreme Court held that: (1) trial court's finding of fact as to fair market value of secured property at time of trustee's sale was supported by substantial evidence; (2) findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment of trial court regarding whether monetary award in judgment represented condemnation award or deficiency judgment was not so unclear that enforcement of judgment was impossible; and (3) vendors were entitled under deed of trust, which required purchasers to assign to vendors any condemnation award paid for taking of secured property, to only that portion of condemnation award which satisfied deficiency after vendors purchased the property at trustee's sale. Affirmed as modified. Jones, Jones, Bell, Close & Brown, Las Vegas, for Appellants. 97 Nev. 421, 422 (1981) Halfon v. Title Ins. & Trust Co. Morse-Foley and John H. Mowbray, Las Vegas, for Respondents. 1. Appeal and Error. District court's determination as to fair market value of real property will not be disturbed on appeal if it is supported by substantial evidence.

Printed on: 10/20/01 Page # 2 2. Mortgages. In action by vendors seeking deficiency judgment after trustee's sale upon purchaser's default, trial court's determination as to fair market value of secured property at time of trustee's sale was supported by substantial evidence. 3. Judgment. Trial court's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment in vendors' action for deficiency judgment after trustee's sale upon purchaser's default and recovery of condemnation award was not so unclear as to whether judgment in favor of vendors represented condemnation award or deficiency judgment as to make enforcement of judgment impossible, where trial court specifically stated that vendors were entitled to recover condemnation award of a certain amount. 4. Eminent Domain. Vendors were entitled under deed of trust, which required purchasers to assign to vendors any condemnation award paid for taking of secured property, to only that portion of condemnation award which satisfied deficiency after vendors purchased the property at trustee's sale upon purchaser's default. 5. Eminent Domain. Even absent a contractual provision requiring purchasers to assign to vendors any condemnation award paid for taking of secured property, when property subject to mortgage or deed of trust is taken by eminent domain proceedings, condemnation award becomes a substitute for the property, and mortgagee or beneficiary has equitable lien on the award; however, secured party is entitled to only that portion of condemnation award necessary to satisfy his lien, even where deed of trust specifically provides for assignment of condemnation award to secured party. Per Curiam: 1 OPINION In September 1969, respondents Joe Ingersoll and Jack Lindell entered into an agreement to sell a parcel of real property to appellants. The total sales price was $500,000. Pursuant to agreement, appellants made a $100,000 cash down payment, and respondents released to them a five-acre portion of the total parcel. Appellants then executed a promissory note for the remaining principal of $400,000. Appellants were required to make monthly interest payments until December 12, 1974, at which time the entire principal of $400,000 became due and payable.2 1 The Honorable John C. Mowbray, Justice, voluntarily disqualified himself from the decision of this case. 97 Nev. 421, 423 (1981) Halfon v. Title Ins. & Trust Co. which time the entire principal of $400,000 became due and payable. 2

Printed on: 10/20/01 Page # 3 As security, appellants executed a deed of trust on all the property except the five acres which had previously been released to them. Paragraph 5 of this deed of trust specifically required appellants to assign to respondents any condemnation award. 3 Some time later, the Department of Highways condemned 1.379 acres of the secured property. In July 1974, appellants stipulated to a condemnation award of $52,000. Appellants did not, however, assign the condemnation award to respondents. Appellants failed to make monthly interest payments in October, November and December 1974. In addition, appellants failed to make the principal payment due December 12, 1974. On May 16, 1975, a trustee's sale was held at which respondents, the only bidders present, purchased the secured property for $325,000. Several weeks later, respondents resold the property for $375,000. On August 14, 1975, respondents commenced an action against appellants seeking a deficiency judgment and recovery of the condemnation award. The district court, sitting without a jury, rendered judgment in respondents' favor for $52,000, the exact amount of the condemnation award. This appeal followed. [Headnotes 1, 2] 1. The district court made a specific finding of fact that the fair market value of the secured property at the time of the trustee's sale was not in excess of $382,000. Appellants contend that this figure was too low and that the court's finding was palpably contrary to the evidence presented. We disagree. The district court's determination as to the fair market value of real property will not be disturbed on appeal if it is supported by substantial evidence. Unruh v. Streight, 96 Nev. 684, 615 P.2d 247 (1980); Tahoe Highlander v. Westside Fed. Sav., 95 Nev. 8, 588 P.2d 1022 (1979). In this case, one expert witness estimated the fair market value at $375,000. Respondents also testified that in their opinion the fair market value was $375,000. 2 Respondent Title Ins. and Trust Co. was given the responsibility of collecting the monthly interest payments. 3 Paragraph 5 provides: Any award of damages in connection with any condemnation for public use of or injury to any property or any part thereof is hereby assigned and shall be paid to Beneficiary, who may apply or release such moneys received by him in the same manner and with the same effect as herein provided for disposition of proceeds of insurance. 97 Nev. 421, 424 (1981) Halfon v. Title Ins. & Trust Co. $375,000. Evidence was also presented that respondents actually sold the property for $375,000

Printed on: 10/20/01 Page # 4 approximately three weeks after the trustee's sale. The district court was entitled to rely on this evidence in fixing the fair market value, even though three other expert witnesses estimated a higher fair market value. There is substantial evidence to support the district court's determination. [Headnote 3] 2. Appellants also contend that the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment are so unclear that enforcement of the judgment is impossible. Specifically, appellants argue that it is impossible to discern whether the $52,000 judgment represents the condemnation award or a deficiency judgment. This contention is without merit. The district court stated as conclusion of law number 2: Sellers (Plaintiffs) are thereby entitled to recover said condemnation award of Fifty-two Thousand Dollars ($52,000.00) from Buyers together with interest thereon at the rate of seven percent (7%) per annum from the date of entry of Judgment in the action. (Emphasis added.) It is clear to us that the judgment represented recovery of the condemnation award. [Headnotes 4, 5] 3. We now must determine whether respondents were entitled to the entire condemnation award. The deed of trust in question required appellants to assign to respondents any condemnation award paid for the taking of the secured property. Even absent such a contractual provision, when property subject to a mortgage or deed of trust is taken in eminent domain proceedings, the condemnation award becomes a substitute for the property, and the mortgagee or beneficiary has an equitable lien on the award. Copp v. Sands Point Marina, Inc., 270 N.Y.S.2d 599 (N.Y. 1966); State v. Hemmingson, 359 P.2d 154 (Wash. 1961). The secured party, however, is only entitled to that portion of the condemnation award necessary to satisfy his lien. Silverman v. Lefkowitz, 344 N.Y.S.2d 206 (App.Div. 1973); Application of Lafayette Nat. Bank of Brooklyn, 4 N.Y.S.2d 356 (App.Div. 1938). This rule applies even where, as here, the deed of trust specifically provides for assignment of the condemnation award to the secured party. See Milstein v. Security Pacific National Bank, 103 Cal.Rptr. 16 (Ct.App. 1972). Thus, respondents were entitled only to that portion of the $52,000 condemnation award necessary to satisfy the deficiency. 97 Nev. 421, 425 (1981) Halfon v. Title Ins. & Trust Co. The fair market value of the secured property at the time of the trustee's sale was $382,000. This figure is the measuring amount for purposes of computing the deficiency. 4 At the time of the sale,

Printed on: 10/20/01 Page # 5 appellants owed respondents $432,583.41, leaving a deficiency of $50,583.41. By entering judgment for the entire condemnation award of $52,000, the district court awarded respondents more than they were entitled to recover. Accordingly, we hereby modify the judgment to $50,583.41. We have considered the other issues raised by appellants and have found them to be without merit. Affirmed as modified. 4 NRS 40.459, which limits the permissible amount of a deficiency judgment, provides in pertinent part: The court shall not render judgment for more than the amount by which the amount of indebtedness which was secured by the mortgage, deed of trust or other lien at the time of the foreclosure sale or trustee's sale, as the case may be, exceeded the fair market value of the property sold at the time of such sale, with interest from the date of such sale.